Pfaffenberger v. Jackson County Regional Sewer Dist.

• Decision Date: 07 April 2003
• Docket Number: No. 36A01-0205-CV-167.,36A01-0205-CV-167.
• Citation: 785 N.E.2d 1180
• Parties: George PFAFFENBERGER, d/b/a Pfaffenberger Builder and Leslie Lake & Country Club, Inc., Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. JACKSON COUNTY REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT, Appellee-Defendant.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

785 N.E.2d 1180

George PFAFFENBERGER, d/b/a Pfaffenberger Builder and Leslie Lake & Country Club, Inc., Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. JACKSON COUNTY REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT, Appellee-Defendant.

No. 36A01-0205-CV-167.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

April 7, 2003.

Jeffrey J. Lorenzo, Montgomery Elsner & Pardieck, Seymour, IN, for Appellants.

Bruce Markel, III, Markel Markel Lambring & MacTavish, Brownstown, IN, for Appellee.

OPINION

SHARPNACK, Judge.

George Pfaffenberger, d/b/a Pfaffenberger Builders, and Leslie Lake and Country Club, Inc., (collectively, the "Appellants") appeal the trial court's dismissal of their complaint with prejudice. The Appellants raise two issues, which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing their complaint with prejudice as a discovery sanction pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 37. We affirm.

The relevant facts follow.¹ On June 5, 1998, the Appellants filed their complaint against Jackson County Regional Sewer District (the "Sewer District"). On December 15, 2000, the Sewer District sent the Appellants interrogatories and a request for production of documents. On April 30, 2001, the Sewer District filed a motion to compel the Appellants' responses to the interrogatories and production of the requested documents. The trial court ordered the Appellants to respond to the Sewer District's discovery requests on or before May 30, 2001. On June 15, 2001, the Sewer District filed a motion to dismiss the Appellants' complaint alleging that the Appellants had not responded to the discovery requests. On July 2, 2000, the trial court granted the Sewer District's motion and dismissed the Appellants' complaint with prejudice.

Subsequently, the Appellants filed a motion to reconsider and set aside the order of dismissal. On July 17, 2001, the trial court granted the Appellants' motion and set aside the dismissal. On this same date, the trial court granted the Appellants an additional sixty days within which to respond to the Sewer District's outstanding discovery requests. On October 9, 2001, the Sewer District filed a second motion to dismiss the Appellants' complaint, alleging that the Appellants had not yet responded to the discovery requests. Attached to this motion was a letter from the Appellants' attorney, dated September 28, 2001, which provided as follows:

"Enclosed is an unsigned copy of [Pfaffenberger's] responses to your interrogatories. [Pfaffenberger] will be contacting us within the next few days with the information needed to complete his answer to Interrogatory No. 28. We will then forward a completed and signed copy of the answers to you."

Appellants' Appendix at 125. This letter did not mention the Appellants' responses to the Sewer District's request for production. On October 9, 2001, the trial court again dismissed the Appellants' complaint with prejudice. The Appellants filed a motion for relief from judgment and to reconsider and set aside the order of dismissal, alleging, in part, that Pfaffenberger's multiple by-pass surgery limited his ability to assist counsel in finalizing the answers to interrogatories. This motion was deemed denied by the trial court pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 53.4.² The Appellants also filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court denied.

The sole issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the Appellants' complaint with prejudice as a discovery sanction pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 37. The trial court has broad discretion in ruling on issues of discovery. Hatfield v. Edward J. DeBartolo Corp., 676 N.E.2d 395, 399 (Ind.Ct.App. 1997), reh'g denied, trans. denied. We will reverse only when the trial court has abused its discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or when the trial court has misinterpreted the law. Trs. of Purdue Univ. v. Hagerman Const. Corp., 736 N.E.2d 819, 820 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. denied.

The rules of discovery are designed to "allow a liberal discovery process, the purposes of which are to provide parties with information essential to litigation of the issues, to eliminate surprise, and to promote settlement." Hatfield, 676 N.E.2d at 399. Although discovery is intended to require "little, if any, supervision or assistance by the trial court," when the goals of this system break down, Ind. Trial Rule 37 provides the trial court with tools to enforce compliance. Id. Indiana Trial Rule 37(B)(2) permits a trial court to sanction litigants for their failure to comply with discovery orders. The rule provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

If a party or an officer, director, or managing agent of a party or an organization... fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery, including an order made under subdivision (A) of this rule or Rule 35, the court in which the action is pending may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just, and among others the following:

* * * * *

(c) An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party.

The decision to impose the sanction of dismissal for a party's failure to comply with a discovery order is a matter within the trial court's discretion. Nesses v. Specialty Connectors Co., Inc., 564 N.E.2d 322, 327 (Ind.Ct.App.1990).

In the present case, the Appellants assert two bases upon which they claim that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing their complaint. First, the Appellants maintain that the trial court abused its discretion because it did not first impose a less severe sanction than dismissal. Second, the Appellants argue that the trial court abused its discretion because it failed to either hold a hearing on the Sewer District's motion to dismiss or give the Appellants an opportunity to respond to the motion. We address each of these claims separately.

A.

The Appellants first contend that the trial court abused its discretion because it did not impose a lesser discovery sanction before it dismissed their claim. To support this contention, the Appellants rely primarily upon Chrysler Corp. v. Reeves, 404 N.E.2d 1147 (Ind.Ct.App.1980), which held that a sanction of default or dismissal for failing to comply with discovery is never appropriate without the entry of a lesser sanction first. However, the Appellants' reliance upon Reeves and other cases decided under the predecessor to current Ind. Trial Rule 37(B)(2) is misplaced as the rule has been substantially rewritten. See Burns v. St. Mary Med. Ctr., 504 N.E.2d 1038, 1039 (Ind.Ct.App. 1987)

(noting that Ind. Trial Rule 37(B)(2) has been substantially rewritten since our decision in Reeves³ and the present version simply provides that the sanction of entry of default judgment is available upon failure to answer interrogatories so long as that remedy is "just"); see also Stout v. A.M. Sunrise Const. Co., Inc., 505 N.E.2d 500, 503 (Ind.Ct.App.1987),

reh'g denied, trans. denied, cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1030, 109 S.Ct. 839, 102 L.Ed.2d 971 (1989). Rather, the decision to impose the ultimate sanction of dismissal or default is within the trial court's discretion. Nesses, 564 N.E.2d at 327. Accordingly, a trial court is not required to impose lesser discovery sanctions prior to applying the ultimate sanction of dismissal or judgment by default. Hatfield, 676 N.E.2d at 399.

Here, the trial court's dismissal of the Appellants' complaint was not an abuse of discretion. The record reveals that the Sewer District propounded interrogatories and a request for production upon the Appellants on December 15, 2000. Because the Appellants failed to respond to its discovery requests, the Sewer District filed a motion to compel with the trial court. The trial court ordered the Appellants to respond to the outstanding discovery requests on or before May 30, 2001. The Appellants, however, did not respond. The Sewer District then filed a motion to dismiss the Appellants' complaint, which the trial court granted on July 2, 2000. In response, the Appellants filed a motion to reconsider and set aside the order of dismissal, which the trial court granted. On July 17, 2001, the trial court gave the Appellants an additional sixty days within which to respond to the discovery requests at issue. With this sixty-day extension, the Appellants were essentially given nine months within which to respond to the Sewer District's discovery requests. Again, however, the Appellants failed to respond. Thus, the Sewer District next filed a second motion to dismiss the Appellants' complaint, which the trial court granted with prejudice.

Moreover, the record before us does not indicate that the Appellants ever: (1) requested an additional extension of time to respond to the discovery requests subsequent to the sixty-day extension; or (2) informed the trial court, or the Sewer District for that matter, of Pfaffenberger's surgery and the Appellants' resulting difficulty in completing the discovery responses. Rather, the only communication between the Appellants and the Sewer District evidenced in the record is the letter dated September 28, 2001, wherein the Appellants' attorney declares that a signed and completed response to the interrogatories would be forthcoming. Yet, this letter does not even refer to the Appellants' responses to the request for production. We have previously held that when the party alleged to have not complied with discovery orders: (1) has been given an additional reasonable period within which to respond (i.e., sixty days); (2) was warned in advance that dismissal or entry of a default judgment would be the penalty for noncompliance (i.e., the prior dismissal); (3) has not timely responded or requested additional time; and (4) has not...